Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 23, 2014 11:00am-11:31am PDT

11:00 am
from the controller's office verify this is the process for temporary positions versus permanent positions? >> i think it's a crux that we have here today. we have temporary positions that and we have permanent positions we want to create with the aso amendment and we have money for that. once staff from a temporary position moves to a permanent position, that temporary position would no longer be around any more. i'm concerned that we're getting double counted here from the budget analyst, i want to verify whether we're getting double counted or not, hoping you might be able to clarify how this process might work. >> i'm lisa sandler with the controller's office. with this particular supplemental we have not looked yet at the portion mr. rourke is speaking to about
11:01 am
what positions are currently being filled by temp positions so i couldn't speak to that. i think your question was to process? >> how does it typically work? there are a lot of temps in the department. mr. rourke says the positions we will be creating could be filled by many of the temporary employees, so i want to make sure that as that process happens that a temporary employee is moving to a permanent position, that we're going to see the temporary position go away where it's not going to be placed in the budget where there will be a position in the aso and money in the aao, so can you confirm what actually happens? >> my understanding of the kai temporary positions work, there's funding in the budget for the temporary positions but i have to go back and look at how exactly the fte's are written. i don't want to tell you the wrong thing but i can
11:02 am
get back to you about that. >> mr. rourke >> we fund the temp salaries through our salary budget. we have our $10 million in salary savings, that is where we fund the temp positions. the reason we have so many temps is to meet that workload demand. an example would be, pick a 2903 classification eligibility worker, if we don't have an existing list but we know we have bodies coming through the door that need to be classified for benefits, for those willing to take a temporary six-month job we will fill that position while we are con dupblting the exam. it's a way to meet our operational needs without having to go through the hr process mr. rose spoke of. >> i'm concerned we have this broad discretion within the department to have temps rise and fall but never quite go away and you have a way to manage your budget to have
11:03 am
salary savings at year end or not and it seems, you know, the control should be a bit tighter than what they are. >> well, i can't speak to the city-wide control. the control for us is our salary budget and the control is also the temp positions are limited to 6 months so that's a good control for the dhr as well as for budgetary control. >> mr. rosen, when you look, you mentioned a number of positions you are recommending are based on lack of demand. do you look at just the amount of fte's being used or do you also look at temp positions being used to fill certain parts of the demand as well. >> what we did is look at the workload justification for having a new position there.
11:04 am
for instance, in -- harvey wants me to give an example. basically in some of the units in our attachment we say there is insufficient workload justification. we look at what they currently have in temples of positions and how many cases they handle and maybe what some of the enhanced requirements are under the new legislation and determine if they really need additional bodies to do it. >> i understand that kind of analysis. when you look at the number of positions do you also look at the temp poeptions they have? what we are hearing is there's a ton of temp positions filling kind of -- back filling demand for services but the question is if you are only looking at fte's and equivocating and doing your math that way, we're not looking at what the demand is because we're also seeing what the part-time people are doing. >> if you say you have 10 positions to do 100 cases,
11:05 am
whether those are filled with temp workers or permanent workers isn't the issue. if they say they need 15 people to work those cases, we are saying you haven't shown why you need 5 extra bodies to do the work. >> if i can give an example, our supplemental request asks for two 9702 employment training specialists. we currently have budgeted 19.15 fte we currently have filled 9, so you just look at those numbers and say there's 10 vacant positions, why are you asking for two more? then you go across we have 17 temp exempt 9702 positions, so results in an adjusted count of negative 8. it's difficult to get this data and we shared it
11:06 am
with them a few days ago but that's what we're looking at sort of we're budgeted for 19, we have 9 permanent but we're being filled by temps so really the vacancy number is artificial. >> i think we can simplify this quite a bit. we had two different arguments. one is the one we just explained to you, we looked at workload, whether it's being filled by permanent or temporary. taken unfilled position and assign it to that task. that was the other side of our recommendation. when they gave us new information yesterday we in fact looked at five of those positions and we said you're right, those sht really vacant, you really do need the additional bodies, you need the additional positions. those were in cal fresh and we have a revised recommendation today so we took that information and
11:07 am
revised our recommendations so we think our recommendations are pretty sound at this point. >> so if i could just ask a little bit of a different line of questioning, so understand all the comments about these are taxpayer dollars, they are taxpayer dollars and i fully agree with that. as a city we have to look at things maybe a little different lens at times. some your comment about this is all state and federal funded going forward starting in theory with july 1, i mean is it the case that not only the positions you are looking to fill to meet demand, i guess the argument would be it's better to have state dollars fill it than general fund dollars, but no. 2 the future if you don't pull down from the state when they literally offer it to you, is it your experience in the past that that hampers future allocations? i absolutely understand both sides of the argument about it's all taxpayer dollars and it all affects us and it does but i
11:08 am
think sometimes as a city we have to make choices. it's like the central subway money, some people would say that's a lot of money but if you are going to pull 80 percent of the money from federal sources it's not like if we didn't pull it, the federal government would give the money back to the taxpayers, they would spend it and give it to another city. we're not going to put it back in people's pockets, it's going to go somewhere else. >> that's exactly right. as it happens it will go to another county, a county that can demonstrate it has spent the money and it has the need for additional funds. many counties, including ours, overspend our allocation. we may get $10 million for a certain program, medical is a good example, we may spend 12 million and it's a public policy decision that we negotiate at the board and the board and the mayor say, yeah,
11:09 am
well, it's worth an additional $2 million in county funds to support medical. what obviously is the legislature approves the budget, the entire appropriation goes to social services who then decides how to apportion it among 56 counties. they look at fte, that all goes into their calculation and they say, okay, san francisco, you get x for example the cal works program, the $278 million additional dollars, let's look at their historical program on cal works, wow, they have a robust program, they spend a lot of their money -- just as an aside we're not spending just to spend. we're not saying well we get it so let's figure out how to spend it. when we get the new mandates we roll it down to our program analysts,
11:10 am
okay, what is it going to take you to meet this new client demand. we need a unit of workers, we need an analyst and we need a unit of clerks. we do an iterative process within the department. it's not as if the need isn't there and we are just spending it, the need is there and the reason i made the comment about state and federal because we're fortunate, finally, we haven't been the last 5 or 6 years, where we didn't get funding. now they have the money to do it and they are providing it to counties. so if we don't spend it that means maybe contra costa gets more money. >> if we don't draw down the money from the state and we still have to meet a mandate. >> that's right. either we meet our mandates not as well or we don't meet our mandates or in the case of ihhs, which
11:11 am
is a great example, we have a mandate to reassess every ihhs consumer once a year. we are reassessing 48 percent of our ihhs consumers every year because we don't have the case workers to do it. >> there's a 31.5 million allocation from the state, our recommendation is to reduce it by $134,000 for certain administrative costs. i believe the department agreed to that. the positions are not being funded by the 31.5 million, they are being funded by salary savings in the budget. i know there will be a budget for 13-foerb coming forward in which there will be a new appropriation at that time. >> colleagues, any questions? further discussion? before we go to public comment, madam clerk, can we call item 2. >> item no. 2 is an ordinance
11:12 am
appropriating approximately $31.5 million in order to support in home supportive services, cal works and other program expenditures in fiscal year 2013-2014. >> madam clerk, why don't we move on to public comment? anyone wish to comment on items 1 or 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor avalos, if you want to talk --. >> i don't know what to say. i feel like we're pretty far apart. i don't in any way want to hamstring the human services agency on core missions and clearly there's a need for ensuring that people can access the many services that are provided, cal fresh, medical,
11:13 am
and income support as well as all the job training. but i feel like it's pretty far apart between the recommendations from the budget analyst and the department. one idea i'm thinking is there a way to perhaps, you know, put money on reserve, on budget committee reserve, and get a report on actual hiring of new staff to implement these new programs and service integration and, you know, there's a part that we want to hire for the current fiscal year and the bulk are going tor hired for the next fiscal year maybe in the summer we can get a report on how things have gone for the current year and we can base release of funds on those remarks from trent rourke
11:14 am
>> to clarify, just to get specific what that would entail would be approving a salary ordinance for this fiscal year, given we have such a short period of tie, i think putting it on reserve it would just be back in a few weeks but it would be i think next year's the hsa position ordinance increasing that. that's almost --. >> so i have a mind --. >> sorry, there's another option to thin for a week to see if everyone can figure this out and i'll throw that out there's a different option. >> we can do that too. >> again, i'm sensitive to timing and implementing, i'm sorry mr. city attorney if i screwed up my explanation there of my thought process. >> deputy city attorney john gepner. i wanted to be sure i was understanding supervisor avalos' comment. you can place
11:15 am
funds on reserve. if you want to consider future aso amendments you can do that by continuing the item or as supervisor farrell says, approving the positions for this fiscal year, considering the position begin in next year's aso which you will be considering. >> i just don't know how to land on the number of positions in the aso to move forward today, but we do have money that is from the state, we know it's a certify night amount that would cover the services and the positions. so what i was thinking was approving some portion, if not all, of the positions and then put money on reserve and get a report from hsa then that we can release the funds for, to cover the positions. you know but i also, i'm concerned there's a
11:16 am
wide disparity between what the budget analyst's recommendations are and hr, a lot of positions that are before us. >> supervisor, if i could, we actually in terms of putting funds on reserve, because we are using salary savings dollars, as miss campbell said, it's not the appropriation that matters, it's the aso amendment, it's the actual position authority we are asking for the current year. and the reason we're doing this now and not in the budget year, the budget process next month, if we get new fte in the budget we are not able to hire, there are point 75ft e6789, we are not able to hire until october, we hire in october, they get training, they are not drawing down until january or february. if we get authorization we are hire now or by mi june, get them trained and have them online by mid-summer. that's a
11:17 am
5 month difference. so irrespective of not drawing down the federal and state dollar for 5 months we're not serving clients and that's the sense of the urgency for us is to get the authorization for those new positions. >> so i'm fine with the whole doing it now versus in budget season, given what you talked about. that makes imminent sense. i think where i feel uncomfortable, we don't come across very often where there's such a wide gap and to either fall on one side or arbitrarily land in the middle, which is never the right thing to do, again i think the discussion here about, you know, again, part of the discussion becomes do we need to do anything, aside from getting us individually comfortable, now we've heard the arguments to dive into the materials and look at that, again --. >> through the committee to
11:18 am
the budget analyst, the analysis that i shared briefly with the committee on the number of budgeted fte versus the number actually filled and then overlaying the temp positions, as well as the positions that have been tx'ed, if you haven't had enough time to work with us to understand those numbers then perhaps a week would be been fis. but i don't know if you have had sufficient time to look at that or not, i guess is the question. >> members of the committee, we could spend a week working with the committee if that would help the committee. i should consult with the city attorney but i believe you could approve the appropriation.
11:19 am
>> then we approve the appropriation and budget committee reserve? i'm not sure i want to do that. >> i just wanted to make sure the appropriation isn't tieed to the positions, the positions have a completely different funding source. the use of the reserve isn't tieed to these positions. >> the accounting shift for ihs is the 27 million as well as the 2 million for the cal am program. >> fund the appropriation today. >> so the aso is item 1 and the appropriation is item 2. all right, so why don't we do that, or i will make that suggestion, that we continue then item no. 1 to next week with the commitment on everyone's behalf that we work on this and spend some time, then we can move item no. 2 forward. just to be clear again, mr. rose, you did have a
11:20 am
recommendation for item no. 2; is that correct? ?oo ?a yes, that's the $135,000 that the department as i understand concurs with. >> colleagues, can i have a motion to continue item no. 1 for one week? >> so moved. >> without objection. so moved. item 2, a motion to approve the budget analyst's recommendation for a reduction of $137,000, we can take that without objection, and item no. 2, can we move that item forward to the full board? we can take that without objection. madam clerk, can you call item no. 3. >> item no. 3 is a resolution retroactively approving a lease between north beach retail llc and the city and county of san francisco for 2449 and 2450 taylor street for a 10 year
11:21 am
term to commence on january 1, 2014, with a 10 year option for use as a mta ticket sales room, restroom and break room for muni operators. >> i'm kirsten legary with the san francisco mta and ask for approval of the lease. as you know, the sfmta has 76 transit lines with 146 terminals all over the city and into daly city. many routes are long, taking 43 to 83 minutes each and -- yes, could you have somebody put the presentation on the laptop? thank you very much. so operators need decent safe and sanitary facilities in
11:22 am
which to serve them for personal needs and they need to have those close by the terminal locations in order not to have to leave the scheduled routes. we have a variety of solutions to provide restrooms for operators and other field services staff, including 21 permanent restrooms all over the city, 15 temporary portables, which are in the process of being replaced, 22 licenses, leases and use permits and 28 free restrooms that are open to the public. we also have the operator convenience station project to install prefabricated restrooms in three phases in the city. the first 7 units in 6 locations have been approved by the city, and we appreciate your support for those. the three rooms in the north beach housing buildings at 2449 and 2450 taylor street are very important. this is the
11:23 am
location. at the end of the powell street cable car line. they are important for a restroom, a break room for the operator bes and other field staff, and for a ticket sales office. prior to demolition of the former san francisco housing authority development we negotiated a lease for these facilities. there was an operator restroom and a transit shelter on the adjacent sidewalk. those were demolished and these new facilities were constructed. the previous lease expired december 23rd, 2013, it had been for 9 years with a 6-year option to extend. rather than only extend for 6 years because these facilities are so critical to our operators and other field staff, we decided to negotiate a 10 year lease with a 10 year option to renew. so that is what is before you today.
11:24 am
we weigh the advantages and came up with the 20 year lease. the first year rent is $7,920, increasing 3 percent per year with a proposed 10 year extension through december 31, 2033. and the rent payments are a total of $212,813 over 20 years under the proposed lease, which is, if you look at the net present value which the budget analyst office did, there is a savings of $13,835 over the 20 years. so i would be happy to answer any questions. >> okay, colleagues, any questions? okay, mr. rose, can we go to your report, please? >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, let me start off
11:25 am
by saying that our recommendation to approve was a close call in our office which i have previously explained to the supervisors. as you note on the bottom of page 19 of our report and as the department has indicated, they now have an existing option for 6 years at $6,000 a year, $36,000. that's a flat rate that they would otherwise pay if you did not approve this lease. we're recommending that you do approve it. the new lease represents a 32 percent increase in rent for the first year and that goes up by a cost of living each year. so it was a difficult decision as we looked at this, it was a close call, and when we did the present value savings with the real estate division and the department, we concur that there would be a savings, although it's minimal, of about
11:26 am
$14,000 over a 20 year term. the 10 year lease that you are approving, if you approve it, plus a 10-year option. >> just -- you know, this is comparatively a small item here. >> yes. >> we're locking in a long-term lease in the height of a real estate market. i'm questioning the generic theory right now. >> right, that's why i said to you that this was a close call on our part. the department right now, if you did not approve this lease, the department has a guaranteed rent for the next 6 years of $6,000 a year. if you approve this lease and not exercise that option the department is automatically paying 32 percent more in the first year and that's going to go up for the next 20 years. however, when we look at the entire 20 year period and
11:27 am
discussed this with the real estate division as well as with the department, it turns out that the calculation for the net present value savings based upon the real estate division's and the department's projected rent over the next 20 years, which is a guess to a certain 20 --. >> can i hear from mt on this? first of all what are your assumptions? obviously in order to be from four grand a month to 7900 a month and say we are saving money means your (inaudible) needs to be pretty high. if you have for 6 years right now locked in at six grand, why are we doing this? >> one reason is because it's a critical location and it's difficult to find other restrooms in thary and there are no facilities including across the entire city where there is also a break room and a ticket sales office included in the deal. so this is a unique location with a unique
11:28 am
set of needs so we have looked at comps through online services that the mta subscribes to, including costar and loop net, and comps were that this is a reasonable rent and that rents, yes, are, they are high now but who knows what they will do in the future. they could go up and they dwo down, but in order to have less uncertainty regarding this location and will we nose to ask for a 10 year lease with a 10 year option. >> 20 years. >> yes, so it's a 20 year total. >> okay, sorry, mr. rose, anything more? >> no, i want to emphasize, it's your very question that i started off my presentation by saying it was a close call in our office by making this recommendation to approve. we stand by that recommendation but i did want the committee to understand that. so our recommendation is
11:29 am
simply to amend for retro activity, this is a lease that is effective january 1st, 2014 and to approve as amended. >> colleagues, any questions? we'll open up to public comment. any public comment on item 3? seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. look, it's pretty close for me. i don't understand, i get the value of the space, it's a unique space and you can look at costar and loop net and do things like that. i think however locking in long-term things i'm not so sure the wisdom of that, but this is ultimately smaller dollar amounts and if there is security i will bow to that with the mta to make sure -- and i know having restroom facilities on our drivers is
11:30 am
incredibly important for the right places but i think when we do these types of things during these boom times, if you will, we talk about rents, we are talking about affordability, i think there needs to be a broader discussion on that going forward. i am probably laying exactly where mr. rose did. >> move to amend the proposed resolution for retroactive and approve the resolution as amended. >> motion to amend, can we do that without objection? so moved. and the underlying item as amended? can we do that as well? madam clerk. >> item no. 4 is a resolution authorizing the issuance of up to $30 million aggregated principal amount of port revenue bonds for the purpose of financing or refinancing certain capital improvements related to the port, approving the forms of documents relating